What has the biggest impact of sound quality in your Hi-Fi system?

[KEW]

The SQ depends on the medium and how much they cared about how it sounded. The Swing era was about shoveling out units and the records were played on equipment that could never hope to play it back faithfully unless the person had the funds to build a system that was on the level of what the studios had. Some artists and producers were very interested in SQ, notably Bing Crosby and Les Paul and Bing gave some open reel tape machines to Les Paul and as soon as he had figured out how they worked, the next thing he did was order more record heads, which he used to invent multi-track recording.

I don't know if you like Miles Davis, but check out Sketches of Spain and Kind of Blue.

Just listened to Kind of Blue.
I wish one of the saxes would see fit to suck the spit off of his reed in So What (at about 57s), but the recording is amazing for '59! I would have assumed '70 or later.
Thanks! Great album - I know most of the music, but from other covers of it.

 

[herbu]

Read: What Makes the Biggest Audible Differences in Home Theater?

Here's the problem, and why Speakers win.
Let's say you choose Source, and you only play CD quality music on your system. You have immediately eliminated any music from your enjoyment except that which you own... at least as far as I know. I'm not aware of any free source of CD quality music. Even the paid subscription outlets seem to top at 192Mbps.

So if you value CD quality above all else, I suggest starting your music library with stuff you really, really like. You'll be listening to it a lot.

On the other hand, if your priority is Speakers, you have a whole world of music at your fingertips, and can build your library of CD quality stuff at your leisure.

 

[highfigh]

They're out there, just waiting to pounce. I've told the story of a conversation I had with an intense audiophile at a trade show. We were discussing one of my favorite topics; room acoustics. He proudly proclaimed "I deal with room acoustics with cable choice." I burst out laughing, thinking we would be sharing his humorous statement. But he was serious, and his feelings were hurt.

I don't even argue about the sonic differences among cables. What I do maintain is that the differences are minuscule when compared to the quality of program material, loudspeakers, and/or room acoustics. First, pick the low hanging fruit.

Using cables to deal with acoustics is about as useful as changing socks.

After working at a music store, I moved on to a stereo shop in '78 and when someone needed cables, we sold cables. Every system went out the door with enough 18 ga speaker wire to reach the speakers- if they wanted more, I think it was about five cents per foot and that's what most stores sold for the average system unless higher power was involved, usually defined as "more than 100W/channel". It worked and even the hard core audiophiles (we called them 'audio filets' or 'audiopiles') only asked for 16 ga without making us feel like lepers for not having something that can solve differential equations. Then, we got a roll of 12 ga with clear PVC insulation that made the wire look huge and we sold a lot of it. Because it looked big. Yikes. The local high end stores started using Cramolin for cleaning contacts- it became a bit of a "You must use this if you're serious about audio" and IIRC, Audio Magazine gave it their sign of approval. That brought its own problems since it had become a bit of a Bible for people who wanted to be taken seriously, but didn't understand what they were talking about. At one point, someone who had a reputation for going to all of the local stores and telling us all about his system wandered through the store and as he was leaving, asked me if I had Cramolin. I said I did, at home. He told me to put it on the tangs of my power cords and I slowly asked "whyyyyyy?". He explained that it lowers the noise floor and makes the bass tighter. I came back with "Get out" and he said "No, really!" to which I replied, "No, I mean leave".

Audio and Stereo Review were the main street level magazines at the time and yes, we sold them and read what they had to say, but I stopped reading Audio when I read the article about "The Greening Of The Disc", referring to using a green Magic Marker on the edge. My BS detector almost exploded and only a few years ago, someone at a local shop told me that doing this helps by absorbing scattered light and allowing the error correction to work less. Then, Monster cable ruined things and other cable companies sprang up like daisies.

 

[herbu]

Using cables to deal with acoustics is about as useful as changing socks.

I would hate to smell your shoes.

 

[KenM10759]

I would hate to smell your shoes.

And as my mother used to say: "If you don't wear socks, you're wearing the same socks every day."

 

[highfigh]

I don't even argue about the sonic differences among cables. What I do maintain is that the differences are minuscule when compared to the quality of program material, loudspeakers, and/or room acoustics. First, pick the low hanging fruit.

I began reading about acoustics and attended as many seminars at CES as I could, reading books like The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook (Vance Dickason) and The Master Handbook of Acoustics (F. Alton Everest), eventually taking an acoustics class at UW-Milwaukee. I wanted the store to do something about acoustics when it was necessary but the owner disagreed, even though he had taken the same class- didn't see any chance of that working as a way to make money in the early-'80s. OTOH, speakers at that time weren't what they are now and truly deep bass was found only in speakers that were more expensive than many people were willing to spend and if they won't spend on the speakers, they weren't likely to spend on the room.

If they could only see what's happening......

 

[highfigh]

I would hate to smell your shoes.

Why, I never! How dare you!

 

[highfigh]

I guess I should have written that differently. Using cables to address acoustics is as useful as changing socks for the same purpose.

This is similar to a saying that has been paraphrased in several ways- "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture". Trying to associate words with a subjective experience is difficult. at best, and many times, the results are absurd.

Now, let's see if we can solve the energy problem by raising our speaker cables off of the floor, as a group.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

I've always been into jazz, and as a kid I bought "Kind of Blue" when it came out (mono!) I have many copies now; vinyl and CD. I recognized even then what a special album it was. The haunting "So What" was always my favorite, and I learned to play drums to it. One element that makes the record so special is the rare dual sax configuration, with Cannonball Adderley on alto and John Coltrane on tenor. Most of Miles' groups were quintets, not sextets. As a companion to this album, listen to the more upbeat and ebullient "Milestones" which features the same horn lineup, but with the hyperactive Philly Joe Jones on drums. The sound of both albums is pure, with "Kind of Blue" getting the edge. Paul Chambers' bass is boomy on both albums, but everything else is nice. And regardless of the sound, the playing is brilliant.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Now, let's see if we can solve the energy problem by raising our speaker cables off of the floor, as a group.

I chose the picture of the cable risers in the article to highlight the absurdity of using such devices to help the sound...in a room with a bare hardwood floor.

 

[PENG]

Here's the problem, and why Speakers win.
Let's say you choose Source, and you only play CD quality music on your system. You have immediately eliminated any music from your enjoyment except that which you own... at least as far as I know. I'm not aware of any free source of CD quality music. Even the paid subscription outlets seem to top at 192Mbps.

So if you value CD quality above all else, I suggest starting your music library with stuff you really, really like. You'll be listening to it a lot.

On the other hand, if your priority is Speakers, you have a whole world of music at your fingertips, and can build your library of CD quality stuff at your leisure.

I despise subjective reviews because of the over the top kind of descriptions of the sound reviewers typically use, but there is at least one exception, "Air". That is real, and that is one thing that makes me realize how important the quality of the recording and speakers are. If you miss either one (try B&W 800 series), you cannot hear the live like "air" of brass instruments. So I am going to keep disagreeing with the notion that speakers win. It really has to be "source material", that is "recording quality, mastering, transfer" first and everything else just follow. I have a number of CDs that sounds noticeably better than a number of my SACDs and 24/192, DSD downloads. I don't believe SACD and 24/192 are audibly superior formats but more often than not they probably do offer better sound quality than CD but mainly because of the better quality of the recording to begin with. The reason of that should be obvious, why bother with formats that will cost more if the recording is not pristine to begin with?

At the end of the day, as you said before, it is about balance. If you already have a pair of B&W 804S or diamond that will give you all the air you want to hear, among other things, then seek out the best recording source material to enjoy live like music. If you have a pair of B&M CM series then speaker upgrade should be a higher priority than source material. Take it to the extreme, if you are using an entry level Sony AVR and a $29.99 media player then your priority could even be electronics upgrade. I am running out of examples to use now so if you insist on speaker win, okay then no more rebuttal from me, I'll pretend I agree with you.

 

[KEW]

It really has to be "source material", that is "recording quality, mastering, transfer" first and everything else just follow. I have a number of CDs that sounds noticeably better than a number of my SACDs and 24/192, DSD downloads. I don't believe SACD and 24/192 are audibly superior formats but more often than not they probably do offer better sound quality than CD but mainly because of the better quality of the recording to begin with. The reason of that should be obvious, why bother with formats that will cost more if the recording is not pristine to begin with?

I think the recording Engineers understanding of the end market is relevant here.
For example, I do believe modern vinyl is often recorded better than CD's. I think for a CD, they figure it is likely to end up in a car or on an iPod playing through earbuds; IOW, not for dedicated listening. Consequently, it makes sense to compress the audio (and raise the average record level) so the customer is not annoyed by "too loud" and "too quiet" passages. OTOH, if you are mastering for vinyl, you can pretty much count on the listener being attentive to the music and having a decent system, so you would retain the dynamic range.
So what we need is someone to start dubbing vinyl to CD and selling them as "CD's from vinyl" . "The convenience of a CD mastered with the intent of vinyl!"

 

[highfigh]

I think the recording Engineers understanding of the end market is relevant here.
For example, I do believe modern vinyl is often recorded better than CD's. I think for a CD, they figure it is likely to end up in a car or on an iPod playing through earbuds; IOW, not for dedicated listening. Consequently, it makes sense to compress the audio (and raise the average record level) so the customer is not annoyed by "too loud" and "too quiet" passages. OTOH, if you are mastering for vinyl, you can pretty much count on the listener being attentive to the music and having a decent system, so you would retain the dynamic range.
So what we need is someone to start dubbing vinyl to CD and selling them as "CD's from vinyl" . "The convenience of a CD mastered with the intent of vinyl!"

Gene did a podcast with a recording engineer and another with a guitarist and they all agreed that most recording masters now are for people with a portable device and ear buds. The number of audiophile recorders and the odd musician/producer who really wants great sound is growing and with people like Steven Wilson remastering classic vintage Rock, I would say it might be moving in positive direction but to be honest the number of car head units that are made to use Redbook CDs as the main format are becoming scarce. In late-'96 or early-'97 when I was doing car audio, someone called and asked if we had head units that played MP3 and at the time, I think 128K was about all that existed and I didn't see a single positive review of the sound quality. I was on a rafting trip in June of '97 and found out exactly why people might want that- one of the people on the trip had a small Sony boombox and 5 discs that contained almost 1000 songs. That's not a place where most music will sound good but it was OK SQ, playing them on a boombox in the Grand Canyon.

WRT recording from vinyl to CD- do you mean this literally, or from the original tapes? We can do that for ourselves, if we choose to- personally, I was never big on making tape copies and I haven't done this with my LPs, but may start when the weather turns and I don't want to go outside as much. The old master tapes were used for the first CDs and the results weren't always great or even very good due to the fact that vinyl needs different EQ, compression/limiting and because LPs are played back on so many examples of dissimilar equipment that all they could do was find a good average and see how it's received by consumers. The labels like Telarc, Mobile Fidelity, Windham Hill etc decided to produce LPs specifically for those who might like the music, but for whom SQ is really important. For some, SQ is MORE important than the music. I have worked with some and discussed this with others- they listened to some of the music purely because of the sound quality and didn't seem to care about the music itself. It's their life, their system and their LPs, but I want the music to stand on its own and even if the equipment amounts to only being a table radio or alarm clock, fine. When it sounds great on better equipment, that's gravy on the icing.

Pandora One is playing a remastered version of Starman (Bowie) and it sounds very good. I remember hearing it when it came out, but never on a fine stereo system and the original fit the equipment that was commonly available at that time.

 

[KEW]

WRT recording from vinyl to CD- do you mean this literally, or from the original tapes?

I was mainly enjoying the somewhat perverse irony of the concept of copying a CD from an LP!
Of course, going back to the original tapes used to make the LP makes more sense (especially since CDs support greater dynamics), but I would be quite satisfied with a CD copy of a clean LP for those albums that were better recorded (than the CD).
I wasn't really concerning myself with whether it was DIY, commercially done or a blackmarket thing, I would simply love to have non-compressed versions of my favorite CD's!

PS: Check me on this - My understanding is that older CD's were recorded at an average level which allowed the maximum dynamic range by centering that range. When modern CDs are recorded louder (and they all seem to be), they are giving up headroom (or dynamic range) which forces compression (assuming dynamic content). Is that a fair statement, or do you know?

 

[PENG]

I think the recording Engineers understanding of the end market is relevant here.
For example, I do believe modern vinyl is often recorded better than CD's. I think for a CD, they figure it is likely to end up in a car or on an iPod playing through earbuds; IOW, not for dedicated listening. Consequently, it makes sense to compress the audio (and raise the average record level) so the customer is not annoyed by "too loud" and "too quiet" passages. OTOH, if you are mastering for vinyl, you can pretty much count on the listener being attentive to the music and having a decent system, so you would retain the dynamic range.
So what we need is someone to start dubbing vinyl to CD and selling them as "CD's from vinyl" . "The convenience of a CD mastered with the intent of vinyl!"

That may be true for many pop and rock titles but there are in fact no shortages of CDs that are made from high quality recordings with high dynamic range. I just updated my high quality sound album list collected in the thread linked below, in case you are interested.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/high-quality-sound-albums.78328/page-14#post-1102595

I don't know if all of the listed titles are what I would consider high quality recordings but if you stick to titles from Chandos Records, Chesky Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Linn Records, Reference Recordings and Telarc, you will find that the sound quality upgrade from those made for ipod, earbuds, car audios etc that you referred to will be so significant that you may no longer feel the need to upgrade your speakers.

In regard to compression, Telarc CDs typically come with a warning that says:

"Telarc digital Compact Discs, especially those containing substantially wide dynamic range, will present an extraordinary challenge to all stereo systems. Certain components--even the finest-- may have problems with the most demanding passages. Damage could result to speakers or other components if the musical program is played back at excessively high levels."

I did not bold the last sentence, Telarc did.

 

[highfigh]

PS: Check me on this - My understanding is that older CD's were recorded at an average level which allowed the maximum dynamic range by centering that range. When modern CDs are recorded louder (and they all seem to be), they are giving up headroom (or dynamic range) which forces compression (assuming dynamic content). Is that a fair statement, or do you know?

Since CDs and other digital formats can't be pushed past 0VU, they have to make sure that none of the peaks pass that point, ever. Since analog CAN pass 0VU, this means the quietest passages were significantly lower on the meter than on analog media, so they had to compress the sound. I think I have mentioned that I worked for a Sony ES dealer and in the rack with that equipment, was their 12 band EQ with an RTA. I would watch the display and synch an LP with the same CD, to listen for the differences and similarities. In almost every case, the LP showed a wider dynamic range.

Recent digital music is more than compressed, it's also heavily limited and they use EQ to make some sound louder than normal. Check out Leslie West's CD called 'Guitarded'- it's the loudest-sounding CD I have ever heard and it's not a subtle difference.

BTW- check out Miles Davis' 'Sketches Of Spain', too. Another one that sounds great.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I think I have mentioned that I worked for a Sony ES dealer and in the rack with that equipment, was their 12 band EQ with an RTA. I would watch the display and synch an LP with the same CD, to listen for the differences and similarities. In almost every case, the LP showed a wider dynamic range.

I don't understand this statement at all. How did you do a comparative analysis for dynamic range with an RTA? Did you have two of them side-by-side? Even if you did, how many segments did each band display? Perhaps 15? And how do you watch two fast-moving displays simultaneously? Humans can't do that. I'm not sure what you did or what you really discovered, but this story doesn't make any sense.

 

[Irvrobinson]

That may be true for many pop and rock titles but there are in fact no shortages of CDs that are made from high quality recordings with high dynamic range. I just updated my high quality sound album list collected in the thread linked below, in case you are interested.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/high-quality-sound-albums.78328/page-14#post-1102595

I don't know if all of the listed titles are what I would consider high quality recordings but if you stick to titles from Chandos Records, Chesky Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Linn Records, Reference Recordings and Telarc, you will find that the sound quality upgrade from those made for ipod, earbuds, car audios etc that you referred to will be so significant that you may no longer feel the need to upgrade your speakers.

In regard to compression, Telarc CDs typically come with a warning that says:

"Telarc digital Compact Discs, especially those containing substantially wide dynamic range, will present an extraordinary challenge to all stereo systems. Certain components--even the finest-- may have problems with the most demanding passages. Damage could result to speakers or other components if the musical program is played back at excessively high levels."

I did not bold the last sentence, Telarc did.

I agree with your first assertion. There is no shortage of well-recorded CDs. I probably have over 1000 CDs I would put in the very well-recorded and mastered category.

Regarding the Telarc warning, that's been on every recording they've released for decades. I think it's more of a marketing statement than a real warning for 99% or more of their releases, but there are a couple of LPs and CDs they've produced that have been notorious for damaging systems in the wrong hands. Perhaps the most infamous was the original vinyl version of the 1812 Overture. The famous canon shots were notorious tweeter blowers, and still are if you're not careful. The Overture also starts out with violins at a realistically very low level, tempting the foolish to turn up the volume control to hear them at more "exciting" level, so several minutes later there's a monster kaboom, and it could be bye-bye tweeters.

 

[Irvrobinson]

PS: Check me on this - My understanding is that older CD's were recorded at an average level which allowed the maximum dynamic range by centering that range. When modern CDs are recorded louder (and they all seem to be), they are giving up headroom (or dynamic range) which forces compression (assuming dynamic content). Is that a fair statement, or do you know?

The situation is actually a little more complicated. Back in the day when recording studios recorded in 16/44, like on the Sony PCM 1630 ADC, recordings were recorded at a lower level to avoid 0 VU, and many classical recordings made in Europe engaged pre-emphasis for further noise reduction. Of course, with 95db of dynamic range it was never really an issue, but the industry never liked the fact that a CD version of a vinyl recording would play at a lower level than the LP, until you turned up a level control somewhere. I do have one solo piano recording where the engineer blew it, and exceeded 0 VU in one passage. The digital distortion is obvious.

On modern high quality recordings they're almost always done with 24bit word lengths, which solves the studio level-setting problem altogether, and then the data words are truncated and centered into 16/44 with software (and down-sampled, if the recording was made with 24/192), so overload and level issues are a thing of the past.

As for new pop recordings, compression is a good business decision. As audiophiles we may not like it, but as we all know most pop music is listened to while in a car, a plane, working out, walking, or doing something else, using ear buds. Without compression people would have to constantly fiddle with their volume controls. I'm sure most recording and mastering engineers don't like this situation any better than serious listeners do, but most of the recording industry isn't about pleasing niche markets, it's about making profits or going out of business.

(And one final off-topic comment... most of the experienced recording engineers I've met, like many long-time musicians, don't have very good hearing. Too many years of very loud sound levels. But they have learned how to listen for certain details and attributes. It is a learn-able skill.)

 

[PENG]

I agree with your first assertion. There is no shortage of well-recorded CDs. I probably have over 1000 CDs I would put in the very well-recorded and mastered category.

Regarding the Telarc warning, that's been on every recording they've released for decades. I think it's more of a marketing statement than a real warning for 99% or more of their releases, but there are a couple of LPs and CDs they've produced that have been notorious for damaging systems in the wrong hands. Perhaps the most infamous was the original vinyl version of the 1812 Overture. The famous canon shots were notorious tweeter blowers, and still are if you're not careful. The Overture also starts out with violins at a realistically very low level, tempting the foolish to turn up the volume control to hear them at more "exciting" level, so several minutes later there's a monster kaboom, and it could be bye-bye tweeters.

I had the feeling that someone would point out the Telarc "marketing" style warning, thanks for not disappoint. And I agree with you to a large extent, though Telarc did tell a little bit of how they did their job and what kind of gear they used, so there was at least a trace, just a trace of credibility.

Edit: I think your point about "The famous canon shots were notorious tweeter blowers, and still are if you're not careful. " is worth emphasizing because I bet lots of people thought Canon shots affects the woofers/subwoofers more. In fact, they should be more careful with the tweeters.